On Thursday afternoon I visited Pinewood Judo Club, at the invitation of Wokingham constituents who go there. We were primarily there to celebrate the success of the UK Judo team, which includes local Ben Fletcher, who started at the Pinewood Club.
I was given some insight into how top Judo fighters go about their task, and learned more of the background to the British team. I wish all our representatives well in Rio.
One of the freedoms we enjoy in the UK is the freedom to join a political party of our choice, or to ignore them all if we wish. Some of us wish to be very active in our democracy, others wish just to vote or occasionally join in the public debate as they see fit. Some do not participate at all.
The process of joining a political party is normally very easy. You get in touch with the one you like, through their national or local office. They send you details of the costs of membership and you pay and join if you wish. There is no form to fill in about your views, no formal interview to test out what your beliefs and opinions are. Parties tend to the view that people only join them if they are broadly in agreement with them. Parties assume people interested enough to join are sufficiently aware of the main propositions their chosen party stands for.
Various parties do have rules about not belonging to a rival party at the same time, not acting to undermine the party’s candidates in elections, and not saying or doing things that reflect badly on the party. Each party has a reputation to maintain. Parties wish to be welcoming and usually want more members, but do see that if someone has a chequered political past they may need to veto their membership or seek promises about future conduct. There is a difference between someone changing their mind and converting to a different party’s general view, and joining with the intention of trying to make the party joined like the one the person has just left.
Entryism has become an issue in the modern Labour party, raised by the party’s own Deputy Leader in an unusual public attack on the leadership. The concern is that people who belong to another party or ginger group like the Socialist party or the Alliance for Workers Liberty or the Communist party may join Labour in numbers to push its agenda into line with the agenda of their real party or lobby group. This is not an easy matter to deal with. Some on the left would say these pressure groups are entirely legitimate and form part of the Labour family. Others think they are out to subvert their view of what Labour is and stands for. The rules are meant to stop anyone belonging to both the Socialist party and Labour., for example.
If those who wanted out of the EU had joined the Conservative party en masse in recent years instead of joining and promoting UKIP they would have been welcome, as long as they did not also hold views that the Conservative party strongly ruled out . They might have helped change party policy towards the EU more than we managed anyway. Personally I would have had no problem welcoming mainstream UKIP supporters who simply wanted the UK to leave the EU into the Conservative party, as that view was a popular view within the existing Conservative party. They could not of course have at the same time continued with UKIP membership or sought to promote UKIP candidates.
What do you think a party should do to attract the right members and avoid the wrong ones? Or are there no wrong members, other than law breakers?
William Cash has recently published a good book on the evolution of the EU, entitled From Brussels with love. With his co author Radomir Tylecote he charts the rise of the idea of a political union in Europe from its origins just after the end of the 2 nd World War. He also delves much deeper into German history and thought to establish the origins of Germany’s idea of technocratic government, on very different lines to the Anglo Saxon impulse to democratic and majoritarian rule.
It is a useful source book to understand why Germany twice tried to create a wider united Europe by force. It shows how the peaceful bureaucratic approach to European Union shares some of the same aims but seeks to achieve it by very different means. The emphasis is on the elite class of politicians, senior officials, leading business people, leading academics and opinion formers coming to an agreed view of the world and ensuring it prevails. The peaceful version of this that underlies the EU rewards all those well educated and insider people who are willing to go along with the group think and are prepared to promote a wider Union.
Reading the book reminded me of the frequent conversations and meetings I used to have to have with Germans in the run up to the creation of the Euro. They were quite sure they could persuade me of the wisdom of the scheme, as they hoped I was intelligent and well educated like them so would be able to see it from their point of view. I always seemed to disappoint them. They never engaged in trying to understand the very grave reservations I had about the wisdom of embarking on a single currency without a political union to back it up. On one occasion when I argued that a large majority of the German people wanted to keep the Deutschemark, they summed up the attitude Bill describes. They told me the polling of the business and government elites showed 70% support for the Euro scheme, so it would go ahead regardless of the 70% of the German voters who disagreed.
Bill’s book offers many useful insights into the longer term history of the EU project. It also reveals much about the German governing mind, and its different approach to our democratic clash of opinions.
I became a trainee dragon yesterday afternoon, hearing the NCS Group draft presentations of money for charity to allow them to help people with dementia.
The Group did a good job explaining what they wished to do to help elderly people in a local Home. They were also full of what they had learned from their NCS course so far this summer. They were positive about the opportunity it gives to young people to learn about team working, self reliance, taking responsibility for your own day to day living, and helping the wider community.
I am grateful to the organisers and wish the young people well with their project and with their move to the next stage of their education.
One of the oddest features of some experts in the City is they worry about the impact of leaving the EU but say nothing about foreign take over of the Stock Exchange. When it comes to Brexit they take a dim view of how the rest of the EU is likely to react.
As they fear retaliation against UK service trade on Brexit, shouldn’t they should fear retaliation against us even more if we allow foreign take over of one of our crucial service sector assets? I think they exaggerate the ability and willingness of the 27 to damage our service trade, as they need access to London and will see passports are two way affairs.
However, it is true that the EU has been trying to move trading in Euro into the Euro area. Inside the EU we have tried to resist this policy. We did not get agreement from negotiation. We only won last time because we went to court, and they ruled that the ECB does not currently have the power to do it. That could change whether we are in the EU or not.
The Stock Exchange controls various crucial London markets, from main board shares through Aim smaller company shares to bonds and derivatives. If we allow overseas control of a merged body, what ability do we have to stop the new owners seeking to switch business from London to Frankfurt? How long would any assurances that London will remain the larger market and the HQ last for?
There are good competition grounds to refer the planned merger and consider blocking the bid. The two markets combined will have large shares of EU equity and bond trading. There are issues about access to capital especially for smaller companies.
Mrs May proposed a new policy to protect important national assests from foreign take over. How does the Stock Exchange fit into the new policy?
John Redwood
In June 34,300 first time buyers took out mortgages, an increase of 17% on June 2015. Total mortgages were up 12% on June 2015, despite a big drop in Buy to let. The BTL fall was in response to higher Stamp duties and government discouragement. So we now know the run up to the vote and the uncertainty it was said to cause did not put people off buying a home, nor did the result published with a week to go for the month’s figures.
Today comes news that surveyors have revised up their expectations about house prices, with them now forecasting increases everwhere save London and East Anglia. Thats quite a change from Mr Osbornes referendum forecast.
Many people are quite happy to buy things now, despite all the negative mood music in parts of the media. The largest cost in my annual budget is the cost of government. My tax bill well exceeds my food bill, or my clothing bill, or my home costs or my car running costs. Indeed, my tax bills exceed all of those together. It’s the one bill I can’t control.
Helping keep three governments, EU, national and local is an expensive business. I welcome the fact that we have recently voted to discontinue one of the three. Saving the money we send to the EU or spending it on our priorities will help.
I was hoping that as some businesses and forecasters are pessimistic there would be a few bargains around. When I came to buy a UK car to replace my older one, I found myself on a waiting list as they had no surplus stock or early production capacity available. When I wanted to buy a UK made replacement window to improve the heat insulation of my home I too was told there was a long delay before they can fit in making the one I needed. There were no special bargains on fears of the referendum. I will wait for the deliveries , as they are good products.
So how is your consumer confidence? Have any of you cancelled or deferred purchases recently, or do you think now is a good time to buy?
The IFS clearly missed fhe referendum debates. Leave won, making it clear we wish to leave the EU and have no wish to go on paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.
There is no evidence that joining the EEC or completing the single market boosted our growth, so it is difficult to believe we will lose growth when we leave.
The IFS agreed with Remain. The official campaign made plenty of false claims and stupid forecasts about what would happen if we voted for Out. Why don’t they accept they got it wrong and start looking at the facts for a change?
Retail sales figures for July show the strongest growth since January. There’s a surprise for the Bank of England, who had highlighted a major knock to consumer confidence and was expecting consumer expenditure to nosedive. Instead July saw big increases in eating out, food and clothing sales. The weather helped , we are told, implying people carried on as normal regardless of the referendum result.
The Nationwide house price index rose 0.5% in July, the first full month post the vote. There’s another surprise for the Bank of England, who told us house prices were going to drop after an Out vote. Actual figures confirm the predictions I made here, that there will be no Brexit collapse and no Brexit inspired recession, nor any collapse in house prices after the vote.
The Bank should have waited a few days for these real figures on what happened in the five weeks after the vote, instead of plunging in with its monetary package. There was no need to cut rates further or to buy up more government bonds. The UK government interest rate collapsed after the vote anyway, before the Bank announced its passion to buy up yet more government bonds. The government had to pay 1.37% to borrow 10 year money on referendum day. That halved in the month following the vote. Yesterday it slumped further to just 0.6% with the Bank’s package adding to the bond bubble pressures already in the system.
The Bank’s big shift from forecasting a recession (see their May statement and press comments) to forecasting a slowdown in growth for 2017 was picked up by some in the press and media. The Bank is now forecasting 2% growth this year and 0.8% next year. This 2017 forecast is far too low, and would have been even without the special stimulus now released into the system.
Now is an excellent time for people to shop and to buy British goods. Employment is high, real wages are growing, and the dearer imports will be cushioned for a bit by forward cover on currencies taken out by importers and retailers. Many retailers have been discounting and making special offers available for many months, from way before the referendum became an issue. The progressive power of the internet is helping control retail prices and offers competitive choices to shoppers. That is going to continue.
Doubtless retail sales and residential property transactions will fluctuate after the vote as they did before. The general pattern given the economic background remains positive for both. You would expect the usual seasonal lull in August, but should not expect a big fall in prices or output.
The tragedy of the Labour leadership contest is they are not debating what really matters to the country and to their party for the future. It cannot resolve most of the big questions, as they are not being posed.
The Labour party in Parliament is bitterly divided over what it stands for, what it should oppose and what it should support, and what it should offer electors in 2020.
Some think it should return to more Blairite ways, agreeing with the Conservative government over matters like lower tax rates, keeping a nuclear deterrent, and running budgets that keep tax revenues related to spending with modest deficits. They recall they won in 1997 by promising to keep to Conservative spending plans, running a surplus in their early years, and keeping Income tax rates at inherited levels. They think Mr Miliband was too left wing.
Others think the last leadership compromised with the Blairites and with the Conservatives too much in 2015. They want a more radical socialist alternative, that opposes nuclear weapons, proposes much higher Income and Wealth taxes, argues for larger public deficits, advocates more wide ranging nationalisation from railways to health and offers a substantial strengthening of trade union rights and influence.
Both these are legitimate positions worthy of debate. It is not obvious looking at the current state of UK politics that either offers a clearly winning formula to give Labour 40-44% of the vote and a possible General Election victory. The problem is this last century debate misses out on matters that worry modern electors a lot. Both sides in the debate would prefer continued membership of the EU despite many Labour voters and a large majority of all voters in heavily Labour areas agreeing with the national verdict to leave. Neither side has a positive view of what to do about unlimited immigration. Neither side dares mention the word England, sicking to their outdated lop sided devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with nothing for the largest country of the Union. Neither has good ideas on how to win back votes from the SNP in Scotland nor how to stop more votes for Conservatives and UKIP in England.
Even more strange is this leadership contest is between two people who largely agree on all these matters. Both Owen Smith and Jeremy Corbyn subscribe to the view that Labour should shift leftwards on employment rights, pay, tax levels, and more nationalisation. They do not yet have any disagreement on migration, the EU or the problem of English identity and government. It’s an argument about personality and style more than about substance.
Mr Corbyn can claim that Mr Smith is splitting the party and trying to upend a legitimately elected leader. Mr Smith can claim that he has the support of more MPs than Mr Corbyn, who finds it difficult to staff an Opposition front bench given the way many Labour MPs are on strike against the current leadership. Mr Corbyn looks the most likely to win. This poses big issues for Labour MPs, who have to decide if they then will get behind their duly elected leader. Can they suddenly discover confidence in him where they had none a few days before? If Mr Smith suddenly does better and surprises, then he will have a very unhappy party in the country trying to drive him to more Corbyn type policies when the MPs may wish to tack back to try to win more English and middle class votes.
It would have been better if a champion of a genuinely different strategy to Mr Corbyn’s had arisen to have the debate they need to have about the future direction of policy and the country. It would also help if both sides thought through the meaning of the EU referendum decision, and showed some respect for the public view. It is going to be very difficult running an Opposition with no new policies on identity and migration, and with a grudge against electors for voting the wrong way as they see it in the EU referendum. Opposition should be about getting more into line with public opinion, not trying to find more ways of disagreeing with it.
Dear Justine
I was pleased to see week-end press coverage that the government is considering allowing the expansion of existing grammar schools and the establishment of new ones where local communities would like this to happen. I strongly support this policy and urge you to develop plans as soon as possible.
In Berkshire children from my constituency and from other neighbouring constituencies can apply for places at the two Reading grammar schools, and frequently do. There are no grammars in Wokingham Borough , nor in the West Berkshire Council area. My constituency contains parts of both of these Unitary Council areas. High achieving students at local comprehensives obtain places at top universities, as well as pupils from the grammars doing so, so it is not right to argue the presence of the grammars undermines the local comprehensives academically.
The grammar schools are massively oversubscribed and are popular schools. The academically gifted child does benefit from the specialist grammar teaching selection allows, just as specialist sporting, dance and music academies can bring out the best in the most enthusiastic and talented youngsters in those disciplines. Nationally I read that children of better off families have more success at getting grammar places. This in part reflects the location of current grammars, with a concentration in higher income areas like Buckinghamshire, parts of Berkshire and Kent. It would be good to spread their reach more widely.
I do not accept grammars create an insuperable divide at 11. We need a system which allows those late developers who wish to go to a grammar for a more specialist academic education to have opportunity after 11, and we need to ensure high fliers academically can also be well served by local comprehensives, as many are in my area. As sport, dance , art and music demonstrate, specialist concentrated teaching and learning helps achieve excellence, as it can academic success. The bigger divide currently is between those whose parents can afford to send them to a top performing feee paying school and the rest. More grammars will help bridge this academic gap.
I was disappointed to read of delay in implementing the Conservative policy of fairer funding for secondary schools in areas like mine, and hope you will revisit this and reach a timely introduction, in line with our Manifesto promises.
Yours ever
John